Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 14 2026 Item 10.3 - Chris PamyCAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. From:ChrisPamy To:Public Comments Cc:Mayor Greg Bozzo; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Terence Fugazzi; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Kelly Ramirez; Andy Faber; Kim Mancera Subject:EXTERNAL - Re: Written Public Comment — Item 10.3 — Urgency Interim Ordinance Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on Data Center Applications Date:Monday, September 14, 2026 12:09:06 PM AMERICANS FOR TRANSPARENCY C. Roy Novak, Associate | ChrisPamy@pm.me First Amendment Press Protections Apply September 14, 2026 Mayor Greg Bozzo and Members of the Gilroy City Council Dion Bracco | Tom Cline | Terence Fugazzi | Zach Hilton | Carol Marques | Kelly Ramirez 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 CC: Andy Faber, City Attorney — andy.faber@berliner.com Submitted to: publiccomment@cityofgilroy.org Re: Written Public Comment — Item 10.3 — Urgency Interim Ordinance Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on Data Center Applications Dear Mayor Bozzo and Members of the City Council: As a member of Americans for Transparency (AFT), I hereby submit this written public comment on Item 10.3 — the proposed Urgency Interim Ordinance imposing a 45-day moratorium on data center applications citywide. I am asking the City today for a written, evidence-based response concerning Certificate of Compliance 2020-05, recorded July 10, 2020, and the resulting parcels associated with 8050 Camino Arroyo. A formal Demand for Initiation of Notice of Violation Proceedings under Government Code section 66499.36 has previously been submitted by our organization. That Demand identifies specific recorded documents, including Certificate of Compliance 2020-05, the survey exhibit incorporated into that certificate, and three separate grant deeds recorded immediately afterward. I want to make clear that I am not asking the Council simply to accept that legal assertion. I am asking the City to explain the factual and legal basis for its own conclusion. The Certificate of Compliance states that the lot-line adjustment did not create new parcels. Yet the survey exhibit incorporated into that same recorded document labels the three resulting lots “LOT A — New,” “LOT B — New,” and “LOT C — New.” Three separate grant deeds were then recorded, one for each of those resulting lots. Whether the word “New” was intended to describe a legally new parcel or simply a new configuration is ultimately something the City should explain. The critical question under the Subdivision Map Act is simpler: what were the legally existing parcels before the transaction, what parcels existed afterward, and did the transaction create a greater number of parcels than originally existed? If the City maintains that this was a lawful lot-line adjustment, please provide the public with the written factual and legal basis establishing that the statutory requirements for the lot-line- adjustment exemption were satisfied. In particular, I ask the City to identify: First, the parcels that legally existed immediately before the 2020 transaction. Second, the parcels that legally existed immediately afterward. Third, the City's analysis explaining why the transaction did not create a greater number of parcels than originally existed. Fourth, the City's explanation for the three “New” lot designations and the three contemporaneous conveyance deeds. And fifth, the City's position concerning whether the evidence already supplied to the City constitutes knowledge of a potential subdivision violation for purposes of Government Code section 66499.36. I also request immediate preservation of all records relating to the Certificate of Compliance, the 2020 lot-line adjustment, the survey, the resulting parcels, the three conveyance deeds, Project AS 20-23, and communications concerning this alleged violation. The previous written Demand already made a specific preservation request. Finally, I ask the City not to issue additional discretionary approvals that depend upon the validity of the challenged parcel configuration until this issue has been formally resolved. Again, I am not asking the Council to simply agree with me. I am asking the City to produce the evidence supporting its own official determination. If the City believes the transaction was lawful, then the parcel history and legal analysis should establish that clearly. If the City cannot establish that, then I ask the City to initiate the statutory process necessary to determine whether a violation occurred. The public deserves a documented answer—not simply an oral assurance that there was no violation. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, C. Roy Novak, Member, Americans for Transparency ChrisPamy@pm.me All facts stated herein are sourced to primary public documents and confirmed written City records. First Amendment press protections apply. This comment is submitted as a public record and may be published. CRN for AFT Sent with Proton Mail secure email.